DaVinci

Only if you know how to read them.... AND you do not use preconceived notions to try and skew the results. Maybe, but then that would discount the Congressman that was black that I donated time and money to work for. I know it is a complex issue and therefore difficult for some to grasp... It is not always about race even if it is all you can think about. The majority of blacks that voted for Obama probably had more to do with how blacks normally vote Dem than him being black. Him being black may have been a motivator TO vote, but not the reason they voted for him. But to play in your world: So... If the majority of blacks voted for Obama 96% while 54% of white voters voted for Obama.... Who would be the racist again? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html Face it.. Once again you are proven to have no facts or data... Only loud opinions.

It is what she does... she took my comment about how some hawks to serve in the military, but in an MOS that would never see combat as a slam on women... She then started PM'ing me like crazy. I agree FOR or AGAINST is the same level of racism.

OK.... What if the incident was when the pilot was 8 years old and he was diagnosed with anger issues.... But from age 10-20 he had never had another outbreak? Would you prevent that person from EVER being allowed to be a commercial pilot due to an issue 12 years ago that has been shown not to be an issue in the last 12 years? My point is that this kid is 8.... and while he sure as hell looks like a little shit right now... that does not mean he will be a little shit all his life. If the kid does not change his mental outlook... He will be in more trouble from now till he is an "adult". Yes, the pathological might be smart enough to play the game and then snap... But they would be smart enough to snap and do massive damage in other ways or with firearms obtained illegally. So just like I don't look at a guys CAT A as evidence that he is not ready 1k jumps later to do a 100 way... I do look at his CAT A before CAT B. I think you need to be as close as possible to 100% before you remove rights from a person.... and that stands for a medical to fly as well as the right to own a firearm.

Ah, but I never said that.

Well, people have the right to be stupid and hold stupid opinions (clearly). But they do not have the right to use that opinion to deny rights to others. I do not support the racist undertones to the civil war. Unfortunately, it always seems to be all that is considered and anyone that agrees with the 'States rights' angle is automatically considered a racist. So if we can drop the racist BS, this could be a good discussion. Why bother preserving the Union? "The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." It was fought to try and see if the little experiment in a nation built on a representative democracy could work. The irony is that the South was trying to take it a step further and the nation as a whole decided that was one step too far. The Founding Fathers, I think, would have supported the Souths succession. It is a pretty good example of the Federalists overpowering the States rights. Personally, I think the South was within its right to succeed. I used to not hold that position till a buddy argued me into the ground with examples of how the Founding Fathers wanted States to have more rights than the Federal Govt and was in fact afraid of a powerful Federal Govt. One of the problems with a democracy and even a representative democracy is that the majority often gets to vote the majority more at the expense of the minority. This is where the SC comes into play.... And one reason I hold the BoR's in such high regard. The Constitution should be the litmus test to any law. And I think the 'Original Intent' backed by the framers is the key. I do not think that modern definitions are relevant, but rather the meanings at the time of the writing. This is different than Modernism or Literalism. So based on me being an original intent kinda guy... I think the South had the right to try and succeed. In the same token, I think that while the framers didn't intend to overlook the rights of women and minorities.... So in this I tend to take the thought that the original intent could also include the rights even if they didn't specifically list them. And we have to look at the fact that the framers gave us the ability to amend the Constitution. So the idiots have the right to want to ban interracial marriages (1st Amendment).... They do not have the right to actually do it (13, 14). And the civil war was fought to allow them the right to be idiots with an opinion, but not the power to actually be idiots with power.

Nonsense...... People are STILL talking about AZ. And the death count was less.

I never said any of the above.... That was all you.

So, are you fine with a person who has been declared safe by the FAA now getting a medical?

Well, he won 53% of the total vote... And 43% of the white vote. I do love how you try to make everything about the person.... Sad really. You have no proof, but you do love calling anyone that does not buy into your line of BS as racist.

OK. So if a guy HAD issues and is now fine and not on any medications... you still think he should be denied? Your website shows this: "the FAA has recently advised they will now consider applicants who are utilizing one of four(4) antidepressants known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI's)." "This should be performed for the FAA by a private physician and reviewed confidentially by an expert to establish eligibility for FAA medical certification. " So it seems a person CAN fly with SSRI's So, are you fine with a person who has been declared safe by the FAA now getting a medical?

Is that person a mental health professional? 1. "If all those things are true" is pure guesswork. 2. Not removing someones civil rights is not 'assisting them in his path to mass murder'.

Proper mental health professionals.

Succession issues were MUCH more than just 'racist' issues. "My paramount object in this struggle, is to save the Union and it not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it..." ""I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." ".....I have never sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of abolishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State shall emancipate her slaves. I have proposed no such thing. " All Lincoln. Well, that is stupid.

I never said he was not a citizen.... go fish. The comment was more "artistic license" to the claim that people cannot make something of themselves today. Thats *your* claim, not mine. Sign of being out of intelligent discussion.

Or serving in an MOS that ensures they will never be deployed....

Gore tried to suppress my vote in 2000 (Active duty, out of State).... Yet some on your side seemed just fine with that.

Cut overseas bases. There is no reason for the US to have bases all over the World. Carrier Battle groups. they can be moved to the hot spots. 1. Don't send them. 2. CBG's can provide most of what you ask for.

Source? Or are you just making stuff up again? BTW, the sorta answer is black voter turnout rate increased 4.9 percentage points, from 60.3% in 2004 to 65.3% in 2008 Not really important since the question was a nonsensical question to Amazon based on her rant.

Fair enough..... The answer is not really important... It was more a nonsensical reply/question to Amazons nonsensical question.

Answered in post #114 I am supporting only checking people that have shown through ACTIONS to be breaking the law. In my world only the guy that is ACTING suspicious should be subject to additional checking. Again, I propose that their ACTIONS determine if they are pulled over for additional screening. YOU are the one espousing the opinion you have suggested. Do you suggest that cops should be allowed to pull people over in the middle of the day to check for taillights? Me, I'd only pull them over at NIGHT if they were driving without them. Yep, stupid. I have a buddy with a 73 Judge that is only driven in perfect weather that does not have working windshield wipers.... I guess you would call the cops on him? But if he is driving in the rain without them... He should get a ticket. I would support pulling over a person driving at night without taillights, or driving in the rain without wipers. Do you support the right of cops to pull you over in the middle of the day, no rain, in no traffic, while you are driving perfectly and inspect for taillights, wipers, and a horn?

I understand your argument. But you must have missed that I think a guy with a CHL should be allowed to carry on a plane and that security screening is not really working. Security screening is to make people feel better, just like security guards are "visual deterrents". Maybe you also missed that there are 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States (2007) and only 1.4m arrests for DUI. Stepping on the rights of 254.4M to stop 1.4M seems excessive. Would you support random searches and DNA swabs/blood tests just to "check" if you are guilty of something? Also: A car is your private conveyance. A commercial plane is not.

Can't say he will be missed.... I never watched him. My parents watched him and it drove me nuts when I would visit them. To be fair, Rachel Maddow also bothers me.

A question.... What if a person is on Meds for a mental illness and wants to get a medical for a pilots license and are denied. Do you support that as well? I read a conversation on here somewhere about medically depressed skydiving students. Some think that if the person has mental issues strong enough to require medication that they should get a note from their treating psychiatrist... Others say that if they are medicated, what was the danger? Where do you side on that? Really just a question. I think that this kid needs to be watched the rest of his life. But I am not sure if properly medicated that he should be prohibited from certain aspects of life. If he is proven to be a danger, I have no issue with him having certain rights removed (gun, flying, skydiving...etc). Correct. The argument is over what "level" of unstable. Some people want ANY issue to prevent ownership, others only want to prevent people that have shown a danger to others. AND laws like that can often be moved depending on the climate. Should a guy that went to marriage counseling with his wife be prevented from ownership? Some people (few) want that. I tend to try and fall on the side of restricting freedoms only in solid cases.

How many Dems voted for Obama because he was black?

You answered your own question: "There are some advantages to treating children like children when it comes to determine punishment." Removal of rights is punishment. Personally, I think it would depend on how this situation ends. Does the child go to counseling and in the process end his rage problems? If after 10 years there is no further issue... And his psychological professionals do not see him as a danger... Why should his rights be taken away? Of course that is the simple answer. I think this child should be watched closely for the rest of his life. If he starts to develop issues, then actions should be taken. Kinda like how a known Drunk Driver could have an interlock put on his car.